kwc Posted April 7, 2018 at 10:14 PM Share Posted April 7, 2018 at 10:14 PM So wonder if we will get filling on Monday or a new delay?It would really surprise me if the State attempted to extend. The court has already stated “no further extensions... except in extraordinary circumstances,” and if they had planned to request an extension it must have been filed at least 7 days before the due date. That didn’t happen, so I would expect to see a filing on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul1911 Posted April 9, 2018 at 06:19 PM Share Posted April 9, 2018 at 06:19 PM Well Today is the day. Lets see what we get for our reading enjoyment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 9, 2018 at 09:14 PM Share Posted April 9, 2018 at 09:14 PM Well Today is the day. Lets see what we get for our reading enjoyment. Enjoy! Brief is attached. 26 - Defendants-Appellees Brief.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F12Mahon Posted April 9, 2018 at 10:43 PM Share Posted April 9, 2018 at 10:43 PM Well Today is the day. Lets see what we get for our reading enjoyment.Enjoy! Brief is attached. 26 - Defendants-Appellees Brief.pdf I get a message the file is damaged. Both Chrome and Adobe Reader can't open it. Eugene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 9, 2018 at 10:48 PM Share Posted April 9, 2018 at 10:48 PM I get a message the file is damaged. Both Chrome and Adobe Reader can't open it.EugeneHere is an alternate link: http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/26-Defendants-Appellees-Brief.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F12Mahon Posted April 9, 2018 at 10:50 PM Share Posted April 9, 2018 at 10:50 PM I get a message the file is damaged. Both Chrome and Adobe Reader can't open it.EugeneHere is an alternate link: http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/26-Defendants-Appellees-Brief.pdf Thank you. Eugene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted April 10, 2018 at 09:36 PM Share Posted April 10, 2018 at 09:36 PM So, what is the analysis for the filing? Is the brief loaded with cr@p? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted April 11, 2018 at 08:21 AM Share Posted April 11, 2018 at 08:21 AM So, what is the analysis for the filing? Is the brief loaded with cr@p?Basically. They still say it's not a ban just because 4 states' residents can obtain permits. It's essentially the same thinking as a may-issue scheme, that rationing rights is a fulfillment of the right. Unfortunately the Culp I opinion basically let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted April 11, 2018 at 11:32 AM Share Posted April 11, 2018 at 11:32 AM They're not asking anything more of nonresidents than they are of residents and that they cannot vet the mental health of nonresidents. They haven't yet figured out that they cannot do that even for Illinois residents because nothing prevents them from leaving the state to seek treatment elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:00 AM Share Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:00 AM Looks like this lawsuit caught Bloombergs attention. An attorney (Deepak Gupta) representing Everytown for Gun Safety just filed a disclosure statement (attached). everytown - disclosure statement.pdf . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:34 AM Share Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:34 AM They're not asking anything more of nonresidents than they are of residents and that they cannot vet the mental health of nonresidents. They haven't yet figured out that they cannot do that even for Illinois residents because nothing prevents them from leaving the state to seek treatment elsewhere.They have predicated a fundamental civil right on the illusion of being able to prove a negative with 100% certainty, which cannot be done. They have chosen a regulatory scheme that they admittedly are unable to complete, and the response is to simply deny the civil rights of the people they can't regulate to their own satisfaction. How any court could let this stand is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:37 AM Share Posted April 14, 2018 at 12:37 AM So, what is the analysis for the filing? Is the brief loaded with cr@p?My reading of it, is it's a very long winded recitation of everything that has transpired so far in the case, and then "you should let us have our way, because people with guns scare us". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tango7 Posted April 16, 2018 at 01:15 AM Share Posted April 16, 2018 at 01:15 AM So, what is the analysis for the filing? Is the brief loaded with cr@p?My reading of it, is it's a very long winded recitation of everything that has transpired so far in the case, and then "you should let us have our way, because people with guns scare us". Well, given that their "argument" to maintain the ban on CCW consisted of: 1) It might make the public safer (but provided no statistical proof) 2) Because it's not nonsensical 3) Because we can is it surprising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 16, 2018 at 06:56 PM Share Posted April 16, 2018 at 06:56 PM According to the court’s docket, the “Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence” just submitted an amicus brief. Once approved by the court it will be posted for public review. I’ll upload it here when available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 17, 2018 at 12:45 AM Share Posted April 17, 2018 at 12:45 AM Everytown for Gun Safety filed an amicus brief today, too. It requires court review before it is available to the public as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted April 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Share Posted April 17, 2018 at 11:23 AM Anyone filed briefs on your behalf? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:04 PM Share Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:04 PM Anyone filed briefs on your behalf?To date, the plaintiffs’ briefs are the only ones representing the pro-2A position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:08 PM Share Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:08 PM Everytown for Gun Safety's amicus brief, filed in support of the defendants, is attached. If you have trouble opening the attached PDF, you may also retrieve it from this link: http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/everytown-for-gun-safety-amicus-brief.pdf .everytown for gun safety - amicus brief.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hipshot Percussion Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:34 PM Share Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:34 PM Well, given that their "argument" to maintain the ban on CCW consisted of: 1) It might make the public safer (but provided no statistical proof)2) Because it's not nonsensical3) Because we can is it surprising? As for #1, let's not forget Judge Easterbrook's words of support for the Highland Park AWB - "If a ban on semi-automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit," (emphasis added) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:51 PM Share Posted April 17, 2018 at 09:51 PM The Giffords amicus brief has not yet been released by the court, but the organization has already posted it here: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Amicus-Brief-in-Culp-v.-Madigan-Final.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted April 19, 2018 at 12:50 AM Share Posted April 19, 2018 at 12:50 AM And again, their arguments ignore something very simple yet profound: The state may be allowed to enact a particular regulatory scheme, but if they are then admittedly unable to fulfill that scheme, that doesn't allow them to summarily deny the exercise of a fundamental civil right. Arguments in favor of a particular scheme are invalid if the scheme is impossible to employ. It defies reasonableness when they enact something that they know is impossible. The whole concept of predicating civil rights on something some other state does defies the separation of the states in any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 24, 2018 at 03:13 PM Share Posted April 24, 2018 at 03:13 PM Plaintiffs reply brief is attached. Reply brief (Appellants).pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted April 24, 2018 at 03:23 PM Share Posted April 24, 2018 at 03:23 PM Here is an alternate link to the brief for those unable to download it from the previous post: http://morsel.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Reply-brief-Appellants.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted April 24, 2018 at 03:29 PM Share Posted April 24, 2018 at 03:29 PM Nice read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoZman Posted April 24, 2018 at 05:26 PM Share Posted April 24, 2018 at 05:26 PM An excellent brief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted April 25, 2018 at 07:50 PM Share Posted April 25, 2018 at 07:50 PM How in the H ell is it that literally every pro-firearm filing I've ever seen in this state so far outstrips the anti-firearm filings in every logical and legal argument, yet there continues to be anything other than complete vindication for the pro-firearm viewpoint, at least from a legal standpoint? The arguments from the anti-firearm sides are universally unsupported and well-nigh inept to the point of legal malpractice, in my experience from both linguistic and legal editing and research. I am dumbfounded that any judge with even a minimum of jurisprudence could find against briefs such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted April 26, 2018 at 12:00 PM Share Posted April 26, 2018 at 12:00 PM True but it is hard to beat: It's for the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted April 26, 2018 at 05:10 PM Share Posted April 26, 2018 at 05:10 PM This is the most important case going now IMHO. Following closely. Please update. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plinkermostly Posted April 26, 2018 at 06:38 PM Share Posted April 26, 2018 at 06:38 PM Hope you are not in a hurry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
press1280 Posted May 12, 2018 at 03:06 PM Share Posted May 12, 2018 at 03:06 PM Hope you are not in a hurry!If Culp I's timeline were an indicator we should be getting an oral argument date any day now, probably set for September/October. And 2 more Trump judges(not including Brennan, already confirmed) are expected to be confirmed this week, which will make 4 on the 7th Circuit.I still expect Manion and Williams to be on the panel along with someone to take Posner's place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.